Journal of Marketing Management, 1996, 12, 99-112

Douglas Brownlie
Department of Marketing, University of Stirling, Scotland, UK

Marketing Audits and Auditing: Diagnosis Through Intervention

The marketing audit has a long and distinguished provenance as a diagnostic device in marketing planning. Indeed, as any good marketing student will tell you, the marketing audit should be the starting-point for any considered course of managerial action in marketing. Yet, in practice there is often confUsion about how to conduct a marketing audit to good effect. This paper argues that confusion does not arise out of uncertainty about what to do, for there is a wealth of accessible literature setting out the steps. Rather, this confusion is seen to be a product of an implicit bias towards means rather than ends in the existing literature. This bias manifests itself in a clear emphasis on the content of marketing audits, i.e. the checklists and questionnaires which facilitate diagnosis. However, the purpose of the marketing audit is not merely to diagnose, but to facilitate collective action in the light of that diagnosis. Thus, if the end of the marketing audit is learning and change, then the auditing process is inevitably an organizational intervention. In this paper, the author attempts to redress the balance between the means of marketing auditing, i.e. diagnosis, and its end, i.e. organizational change. It sets out an approach to the process of marketing auditing that places benchmarks and benchmarking at its centre.

Introduction Kotler et al. (1977) define the marketing audit as a systematic examination of an organization's marketing objectives, strategies, organization and performance. Its primaiy purpose is then to identify under-utilized marketing resources and to generate recommendations for ways in which these resources could be put to more effective use. Laudable aims you might agree. However, given the significance of those aims in terms of the judgements the audit seeks to make about the conduct of marketing afiairs, it is rather naive to see it as a neutral analytiCcJ tool in the hands of the enlightened few. In practice, the passing of judgement on the conduct of marketing Inevitably points the finger at someone whose responsibility is to manage particular elements of an oi^anization's marketing activities. Thus, the task of conducting a marketing audit is fraught with dangers and difficulties for the politically naive or insensitive. The process has to be carefully managed, and in some cases stageCorrespondence to be addressed to: Department of Marketing, University of Stirling, Stirling FK94LA, Scotland, UK. 0267-257X/96/010099 +14 $12.00/0 19% The Dryden Press

100

DomgUu Browidie

managed, if the end of oigaiuzational change, desirable or otiierwise, is to be attained. This paper sets out to consider those dangers and difficulties. It does so in the light of a view of the marketing audit as an organizational device that when "in play" cannot be politically neutral, for by its very nature it seeks to intervene in the processes of the organization that are subjected to the audit. Itreflectson the process of marketing auditing and hopes to offer insights on how auditors can better manage the intervention towards a successftal condusion.

Lessons from the Accounting Audit? When defined in Kotler et al.'s (1977) terms, the marketing audit seems to serve a similar purpose to the accoimting audit. However, unlike the accounting audit, which is an offidal examination and verification of a company's accounts and accounting procedures relating to past financial performance, ihe marketing audit is also said to be a dedsion-making tool (Naylor and Wood 1978). An accounting audit is conduded in accordance with generally accepted accoimting prindples and is produced by the appointees of statutory bodies largely for external consumption. However, the procedures governing the conduct of marketing audits are not widely agreed or standardized; nor is their condud policed by a pubUdy recognized statutory institution. It is then impossible to defer judgements to the "higher court" of the authority of an established governing institution. Those judgements are made by one group of people, the auditors, about the activities of another group of {people within the same organization that empowers both. Therefore, judgements are open to political interpretation or manipulation and they can, md should, often be contested. In addition to examining pwsf performance, the marketing audit also has a role to play in recommending how to go about improving future performance. Thus, the marketing audit is not orUy concerned with how effectively marketing pierfonns its assigned fimctions in the areas of advertising or distribution. It also questions the organization's choice of market position which is itself dictated by the broader imperatives of top management's dedared corporate strategy. So, as McDonald cind Leppard (1991) assert, the marketing audit is not only a tool for exerdsing management control, it also contributes to planning emd strategy-making through subjecting the activities of all to dose scrutiny. There is also no statutory obligation to condud a marketing audit, or to employ pardctilar people to conduct it. Indeed, as \Wlson (1992) notes, marketing audits can be performed by persormel within an organization or outside it. As he suggests, an interned auditor or consultemt may be a senior meinager, a senior management committee, or a manager or group of managers from other sites, branches or functions. Although in the short term it may be more expensive to use external consultants, they do lend the outsider's perspective, imparticility, continuity and breadth of experience to the audit (Turner 1^2). External consultants are usually preferred by organizations new to marketing, or with a naive approach to it, especially where the use of a consultant is linked to the award of an enterprise grant, or some other form of extenul support. More sophisticated organizations are likely to employ internal consultants and to approach marketing auditing as a regular and

Marketing Audits and Auditing

101

integral part of the marketing-planning routine of setting targets and monitoring performance towcirds those tcirgets. But, these organizations wUl often use external consultants where sensitive issues concerning the management of important organizationcd changes are anticipated. Kotler et al. (1977) have written that the marketing audit has value as a one-off, freestanding exercise. However, they add that its potential has a far greater chance of beingreailizedas part of a regular auditing process which is itself driven by the organization's meirkedng-plamung process. In this way, comparison can be made between the restilts of each audit so that performance trends can be monitored. Mth this data, it is possible to empower staff to take responsibility for dearly defined tasks. Accotintability for those tasks can then be dearly assigned. So, the marketing audit also has the potential to provide the basis for target-setting appraisal and reward schemes, tfius linking htiman resource considerations to the cyde of marketing planning. So, like an accountitig audit, a marketing audit should be conducted regularly and not only when some aspect of marketing activities is thought to be out of control. The auditor, whether intemal or external, has the opportunity not merely to conduct a one-off audit for a client at a time of crisis, but to demonstrate the value of making it a regular part of the organization's planning process. This paper argues that to do so requires skills in organizationcd intervention as well as analytical skiUs. The inescapable implication of a marketing audit is that action of some kind is going to be taken to change something, and this will mean making an intervention of some sort in the processes, structures, systems and procedtires of the organization. Indeed, the audit itself is an intervention. Its announcement and subsequent conduct wiU signed to the staff concerns about something that is happening, and that may have been predpitated by intemal or external drctimstances. It may also come to symbolize the organization galvanizing itself for change. Any organization looking to employ an external consultant to perform a marketing audit should, therefore, look for intervention capabilities too. Therein lies another demger of one-off marketing auditsthey can become associated in the minds of employees as signalling serious management concerns, or as weapons which management use to jtistify a course of action it has already dedded to pursue anyway. The audit can become a blunt and divisive ideological weapon in the hands of the tinwary or ill-prepared. However, the regular conduct of marketing audits can help to make them less threatening and to position them correctly as another instrtiment of collective management control and dedsion-making which subjects all aspects of jin organization's marketing activities to scrutitiy.

Marketing Auditing Much that is written about the marketing audit draws on the seminal work of Kotler et al. (1977), as well as that of Naylor and Wood (1978) and MacDonald (1982). This body of work describes a rather mechaniccd approach to the collection and interpretation of data that seems to have tiniversal applicability, even if the authors never intended it to be so. Whilst applauding this early work, the author's experience leads him to believe that there is no single set of procedtires that works best for all marketing audits in all organizations, at all points in time and space. The

102

Douglas BrownUe

exerdse does commit the auditing consultants, whether internal or external, to delivering to the dient a comprehensive audit document, as well as making presentations to senior management, and increasingly these days, to middle and junior management too. The document and the presentations would provide the following information, p>erhaps tailoring the delivery and the content to suit the needs and expedations of the different audiences. An inventory of the client organization's existing marketing resources, assets, skills and competences. A statement of the client's marketing needs and problem areas as defined by its client group, which is tj^ically top or middle management, but should take into account the perspectives of op)erationctl staff. A review of the client's position with resptect to its customers, competitors, suppliers and other external stakeholder groups that exert an influence on it. An ancilysis of the client's strengths and weaknesses in the area of marketing. An evaluation of the client's current marketing activities. An inventory of the marketingresotirces,assets, skills and competences which the consultant believes to be desirable for the client to obtain. Recommendations as to a course of action by means of which the dient could go about acquiring the desired marketing approach and expertise and to what expeded effed. This is not an exhaustive Ust of dient expedations by any means. But it is indicative of the committment made by clients to the outcomes of the marketing audit, even if they are unsure as to the process by means of which those outcomes are to be achieved. Clearly, before proceeding with the marketing audit, the consultant requires a knowledge of the client organization, its produds, services, markets, systems, procedures and personnel However, the reason for this has less to do with acquiring a farruliarity with the drcumstances and operating details of the business. It is more important in terms of helping the auditors to develop a sensitivity to the agendas of the various interest groups, or coalitions operating within the company. For those agendas will ultimately determine staff perceptions of the audit and what they believe it is really tr3dng to achievewhich may be very different from the dedared aims of the audit. They will also irrfluence staff attitudes to partidpating in its processes and may colour what they choose to tell the auditors about that part of the business they are held accountable for. It is also important to be sensitive to the labour relations context when proceeding with an audit, the findings of which may ultimately have ramifications for staff in the organization. For all these reasons, the client will rarely be disinterested in the process by means of which the audit is to be conduded. Most astute managers are alert to the political sensitivities that any organization intervention can upset. The author believes that four additional requirements should also be borne in mind: Dedding which issues are relevant. Knowing where or from whom to obtain information on those issues. Interpreting the data coUeded in the light of client needs. Translating findings into condusions and recommendations for action.

Marketing Audits and Auditing Relevance

103

At the earliest possible time, clear objectives for the marketing audit should be agreed between the dient and the auditors. Those objectives represent a key element of the context within which the audit is to be conducted and its findings subsequently given meaning and import. They also represent an essential part of a briefing document which would detail a step-by-step plan to be followed by the auditors in executing their task. The broad framework of an appropriate plan should be devised, but rarely set by the auditors alone. The audit plan will establish which issues to investigate, how to collect data and from whom, in what time-span, at what cost, and what management needs to do to set the context for the audit through communicating its purpose to the staff. The details of the plan should arise from discussions between the client and the auditors in which they both set out to paint a verbal picture of the broad context within which the marketing audit has to be seen. Therefore, the context of the audit is negotiated and not simply dictated by the client. Similar discussions should also take place about the audit process, i.e. the way in which the intervention is to take place. This discussion should lead to an agreed strategy that will set out how the audit is to be conducted by the auditors, and the respective roles to be played by the auditors and the various organizational participants. A version of this vision will need to be communicated to the staff concerned, typically by means of formal announcement setting out the reasons for the audit, its aims and the consultative process it will employ. Qecirly, it is not enough for the auditors to take everything the client says about the context of the marketing audit at face value. To do so would be tantamount to a dereliction of their duty to unearth painful realities that the client might be unaware of, or may not have been facing up to. Discussions between the client and the auditors about the audit context should become increasingly searching and revealing to both parties as the process unravels. Kotler (1977), Davidson (1987), McDonald and Leppard (1991), and VWlson (1992) advocate that their audit process should be based on the auditors administering a series of questionnaires to a sample of the organization's ptersonnel. Wilson (1992) advises that these questionnaires should be developed carefully to ensure that the audit focuses on the "right" issues. Decisions about this will, in practice, involve both client and auditors, although in theory you might expect it to be at the discretion of the latter. It follows then that checklists of "off-the-shelf questions", such as those offered by McDonald and Leppard (1991) and Wilson (1992), must be mixed and matched to suit the particular organization, the audit context and the circumstances that surround it. Wilson (1992) believes that the marketing audit should draw the client's attention to both the obvious and the esoteric, and that they will mean different things for each organization and marketing memager. Thus, some diagnostic questions may seem simple and even naive for one organization or manager, while the same questions in another context may provide new insights.

Identifying Participants Another area of the audit plan for discussion between the auditors and the client

104

Douglas BrownUe

concerns the selection of audit partidpants, typically questionnedre respondents and interviewees. Thus, the auditors also require an ability to obtain cooperation from busy and sometime sceptical, disingenuous, inscrutable or even unwilling partidpants. This may be achieved through the early communication of the purpose of the audit to staff, particularly those from whom help wiU be sought. Experience shows that when interviewing personnel, the auditors should try to talk with as diverse a group of pieople in the organization as possible. They should exped to have some discretion over which managers to interview and should always call on staff outside marketing. However, this discretion will sometimes be severely curtailed until some degree of rapport and trust is established between the auditors, the dient and the interviewees. The auditing consultants must meet with headcjuarters staff, visit field oi^anizations, interview customers and, if possible, competitors, and analyse interned information on the marketing environment and performance. It takes time and some sensitivity to establish the trust and reaped which makes this degree of access possible and lends the audit, as well as the auditors, legitimacy within the dient organization. Enis and Garfein (1993) found that their computer-driven approach to the collection of auditing information helped in some of those matters, particularly in generating ownership of the audit process and in facilitating partidpation and the cross-fertilization of ideas. In politically sensitive situatiorts, it may be advisable to have different auditors interviewing staff at different levels, or staJEf from different parts of the organization. This helps to ensure reasonably uncontaminated access to personnel of various levels and fimctions. Otherwise the auditors shotdd focus on the organization's top management initially, and then move down through the orgemizational hierarchy before revisiting senior staff. The auditors should actively seek out different points of view within the various departments of the organization, or a mismatch between the customers' and company's percejrtion of the produd. Such differences can signify conflid and tension within the organization, and between it and its ctistomers, distributors and suppliers. In many ways, the auditors must proted their impartiality and evenhandedness. They must be seen to be taking the impartial viewpoint of the outsider and to be Ustening to all views. The asstuance of confidentiality can help in this regard. However, in their actions the corisultants must embody this impartiality and this offen means that interim reports are shared with aU the interest groujjs in the organization and that promises of confidentiality are met.

Interpreting Data There is an assmnption underpirming much of the existing literature on marketing audits that the data coUeded by the auditor is neutral and objective. In the author's experience, there is nothing hks conducting a marketing audit to teetch the lesson that data about the activities of organizations is never neutral or objective. Audits typically colled opinions or accoimts of circumstances, situations and outcomes from informants located in various parts of an organization. What those informants choose to tell the auditor is already influenced by their perceptions of what the audit is really trying to achieve and for whom. Some informants may feel threatened by the audit, others may see it eis an opportunity to grind an axe. The auditors have

Marking Audits and Auditing

105

little control over this and rely on top management to set a context that encourages an open and frank exchange of views. Moreover, the data the auditor collects is already an interpretation, whether it is provided in the form of accounts of previotis actions and dedsions, or opinions on what should have been done. Thtas the author is already two degrees removed from the cut and thrust of everyday marketing conduct within the client organization. If you accept this as a fact of organizational life, then the view that the marketing audit can ever be a neutral analytical tool is not tenabk. The auditors are then placed in the diffictilt position of having to make their interpretations of the collected data as transparent as possible. It is in this regard that the issue of objectivity is relevant, for the authors must be seen to be taking the disinterested, if well-informed, outsider's perspective and to be consistent in this approach. The technique of triangulation can be useful here in searching for some common ground on which to base interpretations. The opinions and accoimts of informants will differ in emphasis, if not substance. But through analysing their differences and sinulaiities, it is possible for the auditors to offer a fcdr interpretation that can withstand the scrutiny of the dient, even if he or she is not comfortable with it. It is at this jtmcture that the idea of benchmarks can fadlitate the interpretive process.

Benchmarks and Benchmarking Authoritative writers on the marketing audit, induding Kotler et al. (1977), Naylor and Wood (1978), Kotler (1977), McDonald and Leppard (1991), and Wilson (1992), typically view it ets an instrument by means of which to judge an organization's overall commitment to a marketing orientation; to measure the extent to which marketing objectives have been achieved; to indicate whether the route chosen (marketing strategy) was the most effective and profitable; and to indicate whether particulctr marketing activities are better intensified, adjusted or dropped. This focuses on the outcomes and content of the marketing audit. More recently, writers such as Enis and Garfein (1992) and Enis (1993) have emphctsized the interactive informational gathering role of the marketing audit. However, once again the marketing audit is portrayed as a technique, as an instrument in the hands of marketing management. The instrumental approach that is typically taken to describe the "how tos" of marketing auditing does overlook some important facets of the audit as an organizational intervention. The thinking process that underlies the auditing methodology needs to be clarified. It is based on an essentially comparative methodology which finds widespread application in marketing in the context of developing frameworks within which to make managerial judgements about matters such as the diagnosis of competitive strengths and weaknesses p a y and Wensley 1988). In the case of the maiiceting audit, the dient and the auditors must agree a broad set of organizational parameters and a specific set of derivative and meastirable benchmarks. A way of measuring those benchmarks must also be agreed. It is indeed a great pity that, unlike medical sdence, marketing does not yet have a definitive set of concepts, benchmarks, measures and instruments by means of which we can both describe and analyse the anatomy of an organization in order to

106

Douglas BroumUe

mctke a diagnosis and prognosis on the basis of signs and sjmptoms. The author, like Day and Wensley (1988), believes that there is no universal set of benchmarks that can apply to every marketing organization in aU drctimstances. However, it is reasonable to say that a broad set of parameters can be seen to govern the wide canvas of good marketing practice. Table 1 outlines some of these. This table is not exhaustive by any means and it does tend to focus on the qtiality of what is being done, rather than what is done. An important issue for the auditing consultants will usually be how best to account for the various emphases that different orgarvizations place on the common elements of marketing practice. Analysis of the veuious costs of marketing activities
Table 1. Outline of a model of good marketing practice. The organizahon's policy and objectives for product/service quality are defined and documented. !t ensures that the policy and objectives are understood, implemented and maintained at all leveis in the organization through regular monitoring and reviewing by a member of staff with defined responsibility for ensuring that the requirements of product/service quality are implemented and maintained. Records of such reviews and their training implications are maintained. The responsibility and authority of all staff who manage and perform activities affecting the quality of customer service provision is defined and measured against agreed targets. Marketing plans exist covering a defined period and relating to a stated business strategy. The organization can show how inputs from other areas of the business contribute to the development of the marketing plan. It can show that a level ol qualified staff exists with clearly defined responsibilities for implementing those plans. The planning process and its related procedures are documented. The training needs of marketing and sales/service staff are regularly identified and steps taken to provide appropriate training. The performance of marketing and sales/service staff is measured against agreed objectives. The duties of marketing and sales/service staff are dearly delineated within the overall management of the organization with defined lines of authority and communication. Market requirements and potential are defined as a result of continually identifying and re-assessing the needs and preferences of existing customers and comparing and contrasting them with those of potential customers who deal with competitors. The organization has procedures to control the various elements of service design so that specified customer requirements are met. Marketing audits are regularly performed as an integral part of the marketing planning cycle. The auditing process is documented. The organization clearly defines and documents its marketing and sales objectives and strategies. It takes steps to ensure that they are understood, agreed and implemented by contributory departments. The marketing plan defines objectives, strategies and plans for each target market sector and details resource requirements for the mix including pricing, promotion, service and distribution. Procedures exist to protect customer data and information. The process for implementing after sales service or customer support programmes is defined, monitored and regularly reviewed by management. A procedure exists for handling and assessing customer complaints which prevents recurrence. Customers are regularly informed of progress relating to their requests, comments and complaints. The organization ensures that purchased products or services conform to specified requirements. It also ensures that sales agents, external field forces and telephone sales operations conform to specified requirements and codes of practice. Performance against marketing plans is measured and reviewed at appropriate intervcds by management and appropriate corrective action taken where necessary. All departments that contribute to the formulation of marketing plans, or have responsibility for implementing aspects of them are involved in setting out plans for managing any organizational change that may ensue. A process of continuous infonnation monitoring and feedback of customer experience and expectations is maintained via a customer database. Regular steps are taken to measure the organization's performance, and that of its competitors, along a defined set of customer requirements. Such infonnation is collated and analysed for review by operational management. It is also collected for the broader market environment and for the activities of d i * and indirect competitors and any other influential group. The process which is used to gather and rq>ort such icformation is defined and documented and its development resourced. Source: Brownlie (1993).

Marketing Audits and Auditing

107

and their assodated trends and outcomes clearly provides valuable data that will contribute to the overall diagnosis. Therefore, techniques in this area must supplement other forms of data collection. Day and Wensley (1988), Thomas (1986), emd Stasch and Lanktree (1980), among many others, have described procedures for analysing various marketing activities that would contribute to the marketing audit. At a general level, these broad parameters do provide guidelines about the elements of good marketing practice. Clearly they will be informed by the findings of the numerous empirical studies relating marketing practice to organizational performance. At the detailed level of an individual organization, they may need to be modified to account for the idios)mcrades of mairkets, relationships and marketing operations that seem to apply in a specific business. Of course, this is not to say that the auditors must be blinded by what they find. They have the important role to play of questioning why things are done in a particular way and to what measurable effect. This charges the auditors with the responsibility to be wellinformed on current ideas about the nature of best marketing practice and its relationship to broader organizational practices and outcomes, wherever it lies. They must also be able to translate the findings of more esoteric marketing research into a language that managers can understand so that they can grasp its practical significance. In recent years, the idea of benchmarking has come to some prominence in the planning literature (Pryor 1989; Shetty 1993; Watson 1993; Leppard and Molyneux 1994), largely because of the pioneering efforts of the Xerox Corporation. Essentially the process involves comparing one firm's performance on a set of measurable parameters of strategic importance against that of the firms known to have achieved best jjerformance on those indicators. Sources of best practice need not be found in the same sector as the firm that is the subject of the audit, for as Shetty (1993) cirgues, non-competing firms can provide valuable insights and information on best practices that may stiU have to find their way into the sector in question. Advocates of benchmarking describe it as a continuous comparative process that can be appUed to all areas of an organization's activities, from strategic development (Watson 1993) to operations (Shetty 1993) to customer service and satisfaction (Leppard and Molyneux 1994). Essentially the process works to the extent that benchmarks can be agreed, and stiitable comparators found, for which measurements are also available. Thus, the benchmarker must have detailed access to information about best practice, regardless of the industry or sector in which it is found. Authors recognize that it is a formidable task to collect information about the practices of leading-edge firms, who may in some instcuices be competitors. However, they do suggest that some firms may be willing to share the necessary information that leads to a better understanding of the elements of improved practice, if not the detailed actions that can lead to its attainment. Indeed, Watson (1993) advocates that firms that are keen to develop a strategic approach to benchmarking shoxild consider developing long-standing relationships with a limited ntimber of companies that will serve as a network for sharing ittformation about benchmarks and benchmarking methodology. In the context of marketing auditing, benchmarking may create a new role for the auditor in terms of identifying parameters and suitable organizations against which

108

Douglas BrowidU

comparisons can be made. The auditing consultants may also take a leading role in establishing relationships with other organizatioi which share an interest in benchmarking and the benefits it can bring.

Checklisting Although the language of "benchmarking" is currently in vogue, the concept has always been an integral, if implicit, part of the marketing audit methodology. However, contemporary discussions of benchmarking do add an interesting "spin" to what used to be known as "checklisting", whereby a checklist of diagnostic questions would be developed as a means of focusing on key issues for the organization undergoing the marketing audit. The answers to those questions would then provide data on specific elements of the marketing operations of the organization. This data would then be compared and contrasted with a preconceived set of standards, or benchmarks, which would typically be derived from management expectations or objectives. Of course, as the advocates of this approach have always argued, impUcit to the asking of each question is the expectation that particular answers will signify either good or bad marketing practice (Wlson 1992) when compjired to given standards. So, the questions themselves will be derived from a prior view (a theory) of what the elements of good marketing practice should be for the organization in its sector. This model can be derived from the literature, especially that which offers what Baker (1992) calls currently useful generalizations: the views of management; the management of other firms; customers; competitors; industry commentators; sales and service staff; etc. What the language of "benchmarking" adds is a focus on the process of seetrching for appropriate stemdards of best practice against which to compare measures of the client organization's practice and performance. Advocates of benchmarking are cleat that the development of benchmarks is an iterative and ongoing process that is likely to involve sharing information with other organizations and working with them towards an agreeable metrology (Brownlie 1993). On the other hand, advocates of the cheddistitig approach seem more concerned to develop a comprehensive listing of diagnostic questions that can be applied to all areas of marketing activity for all times and places. This is driven by the worthy goal of providing a reliable ready-reckoner for assembling diagnostic information about key elements of marketing practice. Furthermore, as Wilson (1992) claims, having access to a comprehensive checklist of diagnostic questions helps to ensure the possibility of a detailed mapping of marketing resources and their various flows both within and without the organization. However, as Wilson (1992) also notes, checklists can inhibit original thinking and, in the hands of the unwary, can produce an unconsidered acceptance of benchmarks of performance that may be inappropriate to the dncuinstances at lumd. Wilson (1992) provides a very comprehensive series of checklists which can be consulted as a resource in develofring em inventory of diagnostic questions to suit a particular set of circumstances. Readers who are interested in checklists that could be used are encouraged to consult the work of Wilson (1992), Naylor and Wood (1978), MacDonald (1982), and McDonald and Leppard (1991). Qearly, those off-the-shelf checklists must be screened, re-orientated and supjdemented to meet the specific

Marketing Audits and Auditing

109

needs of the auditor, as well as the activities and ambitions of the client organization. Whatever approach is used to establish benchmarks of good marl^ting practice, the auditors must have a clear view of why they sire asking particular questions; and impoifemtly this view should also be shared by the client organization. The auditor must also keep a weather-eye on the legitimacy and authenticity of those benchmarks in the mind of the client. Moreover, the auditors should be clear about what interpretation it will be possible to place on particular answers.

Findings In theory, suggestions for change should emerge from the marketing audit. They may lack the elegemce of sophisticated marketing strategies and systems. But, they can have the advantage of being practical and relevant to the context as the managers of the client organization understand it. Random, disconnected ideas often arise during the audit which may well test the efficacy of the existing marketing systems and their organization, as well as the assumptions underl3ring declared marketing plans. So the marketing audit should also be a creative force, and the auditing process must embrace and facilitate such creativity. Checklists and other such tools are merely a means to this end and not ends in themselves. It is the auditors' job to conduct the audit in a way that empowers staff to contribute, criticize, and offer alternative perspectives on what may be the received wisdom in the organization. Often middle and junior operational staff Ccin spot problems that are invisible to senior staff. Indeed they may have to live with those problems on a day-to-day basis; and they can often suggest simple modifications to systems and procedures which cjm help address the problems. The reasons why marketing resources may not be fully exploited are often not difficult to imderstand. Indeed, many organizations do not know what metrketing resources are within their gambit, or their quality. Frequently, because of the received wisdom, old worldng practices and sometimes despair, managers are constrained, or constrain themselves, from introducing simple changes which would release much of the currently imder-exploited resources, energy and commitment within the organization. Completing a marketing audit does not automatically imply that what the auditors consider to be the appropriate actions will be taken by the client. Further advocacy may be required in order to get a commitment to making changes which, to a greater or lesser extent, will be pairiful and resisted. This will become particularly difficult for the internal consultant who has been drawn from local management. To be certain that the marketing resources will be fully realized, it is imjxjrtant to ensure that every action decided upon is allocated to an individual or group; that the time for its completion is scheduled and commimicated; and that someone monitors that the task is satisfactorily completed by the due date. Allocate, schedule and monitor are the key words for facilitating action. So, if the desired outcome is change of some sort, and both the client and the auditors are clear on this, then the auditors have to grapple with the problem of how to present their interpretations in such a way that managers will listen and hear what is being said. Thus the task of interpreting the data that is coUected by means of the

110

Douglas Broumlie

audit is influenced by the need to be seen to be consistent and reasonable in the judgements that are made. Of course, those judgements have to be seen to be legitimate and to derive from an authentic understanding of the organization etnd the drcumstances it faces. But, in addition to this, the auditors also have the duty to present to the dient their view of the organization, warts and all, in the light of their understanding of best practice. The role of the devil's advocate can usefully be taken by the auditors, especially where there is a need for the cannons of received wisdom to be challenged, or at least revisited in the light of what the auditors consider to be managerial complacency, delusion, or a misjudged sense of confidence. Thus, the question of interpretation is a moveable feast. It should be directed by a keen strategic sense of what impact the auditors think their findings must have in order for the client to take what they say seriously. At the end of the day, it is the job of the auditors to communicate views that make senior staff sit up and listen, and challenge not only what the auditors say, but, more importantly, the assumptions they hold about the business. In some ways, the real work starts here. But, as a reminder of the key milestones and process points of the approach. Tables 2 and 3 summarize them. Conclusion There is a myth that marketing managers do things such as ctnalyse, decide, plan and control, among many other worthy tasks, in the cool detachment of a strategic ivory tower. The reality is that marketing managers, like all other managers, will spend much of their time fighting fires with scant resources and trying to usurp fate's
Table 2. Milestones in the atUliting process. Clarify and agree broad audit objectives. Identify hidden agendas. Establish dear reporting links to the prime source of authority and legitimacy in the client organization. Collect relevant background documentaticm and preliminary opinions. Revisit broad objectives and clarify and agree specific audit objectives. Eliminate ail non-applicable sections from checklist template. Delete all non-relevant questions and add/amend where necessary. Answer all questions within the capability of the auditor, with recommended courses of remedial action. List other dient personnel who need to be consulted for their views and insights. Dedde whether to tike individual, or group replies. Identify which questions will be asked of which person. Dedde how participants will respond, e.g. by means of self-completion questionnaire; personal interview; group discussion; delphi survey; etc. Set up an administrative mechanism for the data collection phase which eases the burden on respondents, e.g. giving advance notice questionnaire completion procedures, personal interview arrangements. Brainstorm remedial courses of action and test these on clients. Extract all action points and categorize them according to urgency, likely cost, ease of implementation etc. In discussion with the dient allocate each task by name, scheciule it by date or elapsed time, agree a monitoring procedure. Source: Brownlie (1993).

Marketing Audits and Auditing

111

Table 3. Process considerations. Initial visit to the client organization to meet top management, and discuss how you plan to go about the marketing audit and what commitn:\ent is needed from the hosts. Further visits to record marketing activities and procedures and to establish perceived marketing needs, etc. Interviews with managers to establish marketing effectiveness using checklists and questionnaires. The development of a suitable battery of benchmarks against which to judge marketing procedures. Analysis of marketing procedures on the basis of those benchmarks. Development of alternatives for improving the organization's marketing and the formulation of a draft report. Discussion of the preliminary findings with the client and the recording of feedback and recycling where necessary. Preparation of the final report and presentation of findings to the top management of the dient organization, and sometimes to middle management too. Source: Brownlie (1993).

greatest efforts to thwart their best laid plans. Clearly, there is a need to provide managers with a breathing space every now and then, to take some time to reflect on the organization's position, and where it is going and why, before commiting it to a course of action that may prove to be iU-conceived. Tbe marketing audit facilitates this thinking. However, there is another myth that the marketing audit is a neutral analytical device which somehow escapes the manipulation of people within organizations who seek to advance their interests in the light of their own perceptions. This paper has attempted to show that this can never be so for various reasons, but most importantly because the auditing process does not end with diagnosis. This is simply the beginning. Ultimately organizations go through the pain and expense of the marketing audit either because they already seek to change things, or because they have a sneaking suspidon that something may need to be changed. Rarely is an audit commissioned just so that senior managers can say "yes, we have done a marketing audit"; although for some oiganizations who seek only to be able to talk a good marketing story, such display behaviour is a motivator. Rarely is a marketing audit commissioned through the self-deluding vanity of needing to reaffirm what the organization already knows, or to congratulate itself on what it thinks it already does well. The point of the marketing audit is to impel action, to fadlitate it in the light of a diagnosis that emei^es through intervention in the dient organization's processes at various levels. The audit is a way of creating awareness of the need for change and of identifying the various camps that may resist or fadlitate change. In doing so, it can help the organization towards a more effective approach to the management of the change process. But, for the auditors this means that the process is just as important as dever diagnosis. At the end of the day, the organization has to act collectively in the light of that diagnosis. This means bringing its staff on board; they have to be involved and consulted if they are ever to be empowered towards change. Thus, the real diagnosis, the one that facilitates change, the one that bonds staff towards a common goal, emerges through intervention.

112

Douglas BroumUe

References

Baker, M.J. (1992), Marketing Strategy and Management 2nd Edition, London, The MacmUlan I ^ s s . Brownlie, D.T. (1993), "The Marketing Audit: A Metrology and Explanation", Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 11, No.l, pp.4-12. Davidson, H. (1987), Offensive Marketing: Or Haw to Make Your Competitors Followe 2nd Edition, London, Penguin Books. Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1988), "Assessing Advantage: A Framework for Diagnosing Competitive Superiority", Journal of Marketing, 52, April, p p . l - ^ . Enis, B.M. (1993), The Marketing Audit: Practical Guidelines for Improving Marketing Strategy, Boston, AUyn and Bacon. Enis, B.M. and Garfein, S.J. (1992), "The Computer-Driven Marketing Audit: An Interactive Approach to Strategy Development", Journal of Management Inquiry, 1, No.4, pp.306-317. Kotler, P. (1977), "From Sales Obsession to Marketing Effectiveness", Harvard Business Review, November/December 1977, pp.67-75. Kotler, P., Gregor, W. and Rogers, W. (1977), "The Marketing Audit comes of Age", Slmn Management Review, Winter, pp.25-44. Leppard, J. and Molynetix, L. (1994), Auditing Your Customer Service, London, Routledge. MacDonald, C.R. (1982), The Marketing Audit Workbook, London, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall. McDonald, M. and Leppard, J. (1991), The Marketing Audit: Translating Marketing Theory into Practice, Oxford, Butterworth, Heinemann. Naylor, J. and Wood, A. (1978), Practical Marketing Audits: A Guide to Increased Profitability, New York, Wiley & Sons. Pryor, L. (1989), "Benchmarking: A Self-Improvement Strategy", Journal of Business Strategy, 10, No.6, pp.28-32. Shetty, Y. (1993), "Aiming High: Competitive Benchmarking for Superior Performance", Long Range Planning, 26, No.l, pp.39-44. Stasch, S.F. and Lanktree, P. (1980), "Can Your Marketing Planning Procedures Be Improved?", Journal of Marketing, 44, Summer, pp.79-90. Thomas, M.J. (1986), "Does your Marketing Pay", Management Dedsion, 24, pp.4145. Turner, A. (1982), "Consulting is More than Giving Advice", Harvard Business Review, September/October 1982, pp.l2(>-129. Watson, G. (1993), Strategic Benchmarking: How to Rate your Company's Performanc Against the World's Best, New York, Wiley & Sons. Wilson, A. (1992), Aubrey Wilson's Marketing Audit Checklists: A Guide to Effective Marketing Resource Realization, 2nd Edition, London, McGraw Hill.